TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

OmegaSexy Archive

View 0 posts and 82 comments by OmegaSexy on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
42

Well, agree to disagree. Im also a doctor and a 6’1” 200lb man, had I swung at someone on the street and kneed their groin and gotten into their car and started throwing their possessions onto the ground, I’d probably be in prison, or at least they’d have used the “morality” clause to revoke my license to practice. She only got away so lightly because of her gender and size. Different rules for her and me in life. Edit: forgot to mention that she was also detained by the police, and kicked and s…
/r/PussyPassDenied17/01/22 04:01 AM
12

Yeah, definitely changed her life. Although, maybe it should. She was a grown ass woman, a doctor, and she aggressively assaulted that man and destroyed his property.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/01/22 03:46 AM
1

Thanks, bud
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:59 PM
10

All I can find is a source saying the Uber driver accepted a settlement from her rather than suing.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:58 PM
0

And so are you? Hard to believe, what with you being retarded and all.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:45 PM
0

You should probably join Dr Ramkissoon’s practice—you two seem like you’d be a really good fit for each other!
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:44 PM
0

Yes, an employer can’t fire you from ever getting another job again. Of course she has another job. They didn’t say her license was revoked. Seriously—are you retarded?
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:42 PM
1

Being a doctor is a profession. She was fired from her job as a neuro resident. According to HealthGrades.com she is a family medicine specialist now, and is accepting new patients at her new job.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:37 PM
2

The Jackson Health System announced they were terminating her from her position. She was literally fired from her position as a neuro resident, which was her job. They will no longer pay her to see patients at that hospital. I’m not sure if there is a more direct definition for fired than that.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:34 PM
0

I mean, they pay you—also they stated that they fired her from the position.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:30 PM
1

Uh—she for sure lost her job. She wasn’t able to finish her neuro residency because she was literally fired from the hospital, so now she’s a family doc instead. Different job.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:29 PM
16

I can’t find any source for this claim. Alternatively, it sounds like she apologized, took full responsibility, checked into rehab, and lost her neurology residency and had to become a family practice doc instead.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:27 PM
45

I can’t find any source for this claim. Alternatively, it sounds like she apologized, took full responsibility, checked into rehab, and lost her neurology residency and had to become a family practice doc instead.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/22 09:26 PM
8

Fuck the state
/r/MensRights15/01/22 04:52 AM
1

The fact is you can arm yourself before attempting to eject a trespasser; that is not escalation. What you’re actually doing is presenting a false argument, and saying I’m being emotional to try to dig at me. It’s childish and foolish. The facts are that he armed himself and asked a trespasser to leave. He had no duty to stay retreated when he armed himself, and had every right to confront the trespasser again. Those are the facts. Also, I’m going to block you because you’re a childish troll.
/r/MensRights06/01/22 03:38 PM
1

A lawyer’s opinion, while interesting, is a subjective (not objective) source that does not “prove” anyone wrong. Are you a child? Say emotion again.
/r/MensRights06/01/22 08:22 AM
1

Say emotional again. Here is an objective fact: you can retrieve a weapon, on your own property. You can confront a trespasser as many times as it takes, and it’s never “escalation.” Have you considered that?
/r/MensRights06/01/22 06:57 AM
1

You can literally retreat to safety, on your own property, and retrieve a weapon to confront a trespasser on your property. You are just dead wrong. “Look, there are trespassers—get off my property—I’m going to get my gun.” NO YOU CANT GO GET YOUR GUN ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY BECAUSE R E A S O N S
/r/MensRights06/01/22 05:55 AM
1

Retreating to get a weapon to confront a trespasser, is in fact, your right. You can arm yourself and then confront a trespasser again. You can aggressively ask someone to leave your property. You actually have a constitutional right to use force to remove a trespasser. But the “aggressor” is the trespasser, who is violently fighting to not leave the property. Can you imagine a world where the rule is that if someone is belligerently trespassing, you can’t go get a weapon for their inevitable at…
/r/MensRights06/01/22 04:05 AM
1

I read the article. It’s headline is that the video is “bone chilling” and then it goes on to misunderstand what escalation is in the context of a property owner trying to eject a trespasser. Probably because they found the video so “bone chilling.” Very object. *clap clap Oh, if I get someone else for protection, it’s ok, but if get protection for myself, it’s not self defense when the trespasser chooses to attack me? Asinine. You are asinine.
/r/MensRights06/01/22 03:50 AM
1

This writer mostly makes the same mistake folks in this thread are. It is a literal fact that I am allowed to go get a gun to ask a trespasser to leave who won’t leave. That isn’t escalation. That’s me arming myself to protect my property rights. Conflating leaving to arm yourself with escalating a conflict is asinine in the context of removing a trespasser. If I went to get an armed guard, or an armed officer, it’s literally the same action—I’m leaving to become better equipped to remove a tres…
/r/MensRights06/01/22 03:15 AM
20

Pretty weak bud
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/22 02:59 AM
1

See, you aren’t being rational here. He did not kill him because he trespassed. He killed him because the trespasser tried to disarm him for the stated purpose of “using” the gun on the homeowner. The argument, from the homeowners point of view, was that the trespasser wouldn’t leave his property. To protect himself, as is his right, he armed himself before asking the trespasser again to leave. What was unnecessary was attacking the homeowner and trying to disarm him. This conflict and the outco…
/r/MensRights02/01/22 10:49 PM
1

No worries, my man.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/01/22 02:39 AM
0

Well, I’m a doctor. So I’m not sure what you’re getting at there. My point is that the severity of punishment for a violent crime needs to be proportion to the violence. Do you know how terrible having your teeth knocked out would be? You could possibly have complications for your entire life, and may end up needing implants and corrective surgeries decades later as a result. 10 weeks for community service is proportional to a very painful and permanent bodily damage? Of course not.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/01/22 08:14 PM
1

It becomes stand your ground again—especially because he had a legal right to return to attempt to eject the trespasser again. Why are you being so stupid about this?
/r/MensRights01/01/22 05:57 AM
1

The whole point of stand your ground is that you have no duty to retreat. They LITERALLY call it stand your ground. Just shut the fuck up already. This is getting pathetic.
/r/MensRights01/01/22 05:10 AM
0

Did you not watch the video? They literally say he is at his grandmothers house. Each of the three major actors in the video acknowledge the child isn’t on this property, including the father. He chooses to continue trespassing and threatening because he’s belligerent, evidenced by his assault when the property owner asked him to leave. There has never been a more justified shooting. “Leave my property.” “Make me.” “Ok…” gets gun “You better shoot me with that gun, because I’ll take it and use i…
/r/MensRights01/01/22 04:54 AM
0

Nope.
/r/MensRights01/01/22 04:48 AM
0

The homeowner doesn’t need to abandon the encounter. He actually has the legal right to escalate this encounter to eject the trespasser. He has the right to use force. The father could have abandoned the encounter anytime he wanted, and he was actually legally obligated to. He was trespassing. This is not the residence of the child. The victim had NO right to stand his ground—he assaulted a property owner while trespassing on their property. You’re basically wrong about everything. Are you the s…
/r/MensRights01/01/22 04:45 AM
1

Not sure what you’re getting at here—the owner of the property was vacating a trespasser. The Supreme Court has upheld a citizen’s constitutional right to approach a trespasser with a firearm. The trespasser in this case rushed towards the homeowner and physically assaulted him and verbally threatened major bodily harm. Even if this occurred in a state without a castle or stand your ground law, our shooter would win on appeal, because this has already played out in the Supreme Court. If you atta…
/r/MensRights01/01/22 04:37 AM
0

Not on your own property. The lawyers in this case literally describe this in the links above, my man How do you not know this?
/r/MensRights01/01/22 04:22 AM
1

You too bud
/r/MensRights01/01/22 04:20 AM
0

Incorrect. You can brandish in Texas, especially on your own property. You can’t run up to a homeowner that is brandishing and “self defense” attack them on their own property. Are you really this stupid? Come on.
/r/MensRights01/01/22 02:59 AM
0

Yes, and he had the right to approach the trespasser again with his weapon. This isn’t rhetoric. This is a fact. He didn’t aim or shoot the weapon until he was attacked. It was his legal right to get his weapon and brandish it on his porch. The trespasser had no right to assault him, and was justifiably killed for his criminal behavior.
/r/MensRights01/01/22 02:49 AM
0

What you’re calling a main point literally doesn’t matter. Regardless of his safety, he has a legal right to go inside, get a weapon, and brandish it on his own property. That’s his right. He has no obligation to stay inside to be safe. The main point is that while he was legally brandishing his weapon on his own property, a trespasser assaulted him. That’s the whole point. All the other stuff you think matters, literally doesn’t matter. I can go get a gun and stand on my front porch. If someone…
/r/MensRights01/01/22 01:50 AM
0

You’re getting too emotional and being irrational. None of what you speculated there matters. The facts are that he has no obligation to deescalate. He does, though, have the legal right to arm himself and ask a trespasser to leave. If that trespasser chooses to attack him, it is at the trespasser’s peril. And, well, look what happened to him.
/r/MensRights01/01/22 01:33 AM
0

Bullshit to you, sir.
/r/MensRights01/01/22 12:18 AM
0

He only shot after the trespasser was overtly physically trying to disarm him. Go try stepping on someone’s property and doing that and see what happens. This was not cowardice, it was cause and effect. The belligerent trespasser had no right to act aggressively towards the property owner and try to disarm him. Had he done that to a police officer, he would have also been shot. You seem to be confusing the two parts here. He confronted a trespasser after arming himself. This is a perfectly reaso…
/r/MensRights01/01/22 12:16 AM
1

He has no obligation to retreat, but does have every legal and moral right to arm himself and confront a trespasser to, again, demand he leave. Your view of this situation is objectively inaccurate. He is justified in arming himself and confronting a trespasser. He doesn’t need to feel threatened to arm himself and say “Leave my property.” The point at which he was justified in shooting is when the man rushed towards him and said he was going to take the gun and “use it” on the homeowner. Litera…
/r/MensRights31/12/21 11:48 PM
0

It’s not murder, because he was attacked on his own property. He had no obligation to call the police, and the police have no legal obligation to defend you or your property, technically. You have every right, moral and legal, to defend yourself and your property. This infantile claim that someone should just wait for big daddy government to come protect them from a trespasser is pretty disgusting. But had police arrived, and the man grabbed for the police’s gun, he also would have been shot and…
/r/MensRights31/12/21 11:38 PM
-1

Nope. They weren’t supposed to be on that property. This is private property belonging to her boyfriend, not the court appointed location. The father knows this, and chose to enter this property anyway out of anger. They say it in the video, even. Look at you doing these bad faith arguments. For shame.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 11:23 PM
0

Damn! I wonder why America couldn’t have invented fireworks 2,000 years ago before the Chinese… You certainly got me there! 🤣
/r/MensRights31/12/21 10:55 PM
0

Oh, sure. Never mind that America essentially developed and exported the modern culture. From air conditioning, to microchips, microwave ovens, jet planes, cell phones, etc, etc, etc. Even this website you’re whining on—you can thank America for that, little guy. Happy New Year!
/r/MensRights31/12/21 10:42 PM
0

America really lives rent free in your mind, doesn’t it? Our biggest export may be inferiority coping. Delicious.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 10:31 PM
0

Sounds good! 💥 🇺🇸 💥
/r/MensRights31/12/21 09:54 PM
0

🦅 🇺🇸 🦅
/r/MensRights31/12/21 09:12 PM
0

He was never arrested. Just like our Texan shooter, and our Texan shooter actually had more reasonable cause to shoot than the German homeowner.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 08:29 PM
1

In the UK, you may be right. They appear to just have a “reasonable force” law that is poorly defined, and they have no strong civil liberty constitutional rights as we do in the US, so a jury could and have found homeowners guilty of murder for shooting trespassers and burglars. The only reason this one may still fly, is because the trespasser in this case does try to take the gun for the express purpose of “using it” on the homeowner. Because of that action, it’s likely a jury would agree that…
/r/MensRights31/12/21 08:23 PM
0

Yes, it certainly would. You have no duty to retreat, and the trespasser tried to disarm the homeowner at threat of “using” the weapon on the homeowner if the homeowner didn’t shoot. Even in Germany, our fella here doesn’t get arrested. Here is such a case, the homeowner wasn’t arrested, and the trespasser in this instance didn’t even try to disarm him like the Texan trespasser did.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 08:15 PM
0

Ok, I choose Germany, the dominant EU super power. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say: “German law allows self-defense against an unlawful attack, without any duty to retreat.”
/r/MensRights31/12/21 07:42 PM
1

I find that hard to believe. Shall I pick a country at random, or is there a region you’d prefer?
/r/MensRights31/12/21 07:39 PM
2

I was going to check the law and see if you were as full of shit as you sound.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 06:54 PM
2

Which country?
/r/MensRights31/12/21 06:38 PM
0

And where is that?
/r/MensRights31/12/21 06:22 PM
2

Are you 12 years old?
/r/MensRights31/12/21 06:21 PM
3

Correct. It couldn’t be more clear—we have video evidence of a trespasser trying to forcibly disarm a homeowner while quite literally asking to be shot and threatening major bodily harm. Cases like this really show how ridiculously emotional the Reddit hive-mind is.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 06:13 PM
0

Quite literally not murder by the very definition of the word murder.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 06:11 PM
2

Eh, emotional
/r/MensRights31/12/21 06:10 PM
2

I mean, if a mailman refuses to leave your property when asked multiple times, and then steps onto your porch and puts his head into your head and threatens to take your home defense weapon and use it on you, then grabs your weapon and tries to pull it from your arms—then yes, you are within your constitutional rights to use lethal force. The only reason you’re not agreeing is because you’re emotional about it. Yes, it’s sad that this father was killed, and it was very avoidable. But the father …
/r/MensRights31/12/21 06:09 PM
1

Almost doesn’t matter what a jury feels, because the Supreme Court has upheld that if a trespasser threatens major bodily harm, you can use lethal force on your property. The trespasser stated he was going to use the gun on the homeowner and then grabbed the gun and tried to pull it from the homeowner’s hand. Even if some jury was as emotional as you and somehow claimed that wasn’t a threat to him—which is ludicrous—he would win on appeal, because he was exercising his constitutional rights.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:47 PM
1

This is your emotional reaction, but the facts disagree.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:45 PM
-2

That’s your emotional feeling—but it quite literally isn’t murder by almost any definition. The trespasser states something like, “you better shoot me or I’m going to take that from you and use it on you,” then reaches for the gun. It’s hard to argue he wasn’t threatening major bodily harm, which is all you need for the Supreme Court to support an armed property owner’s right to use lethal force.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:43 PM
0

He literally doesn’t have a hostage. The child isn’t on his property, his property is not where the father was supposed to pick up his child, etc. The father stated his child is probably at his ex-mother-in-law’s. The homeowner was within his rights to arm himself and ask the trespasser to leave again. The trespasser forfeited his right to safety by threatening major bodily harm on the armed homeowner. It really couldn’t be more cut and dry.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:41 PM
4

Incorrect. You, as a homeowner, have every right to go retrieve your gun before asking a trespasser to leave again. That is both your constitutional right, upheld by the Supreme Court in multiple cases, and your god given right of home and self defense. The trespasser should not have reached for the gun and threatened bodily harm on the homeowner—he should have left the property as he was legally obligated to.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:28 PM
2

It’s so wild people are downvoting you for stating the facts.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:26 PM
3

Reddit hive mind is emotional about the video, and this blinds them to the facts that you’re stating.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:26 PM
1

That’s not how this works. The home owner had no obligation to stay inside and call the cops when there is a trespasser refusing to leave his property. He has every right to go arm himself and confront the trespasser again and ask him to leave. At that point if the trespasser threatens bodily harm on the armed home owner, the home owner has the constitutional right to defend himself with lethal force.
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:25 PM
4

Everyone is too emotional about this video to see the facts and understand why the shooter wasn’t arrested: He asked a trespasser to leave his property, who said something like, “Fuck you, make me!” The home owner said, “ok,” and armed himself to ask the trespasser to leave again. This is all legal. If someone won’t leave your property, you can go arm yourself and ask them to leave again. At this point the trespasser said something like, “I’m going to take your gun and use it on you!” And grabbe…
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:05 PM
-6

So I can knock your teeth out for community service? Bet. Let’s make a deal.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/21 08:19 AM
4

If you only got 1 year for beating someone to the point of knocking out teeth, you’d be at risk for vigilante justice. That’s some serious assault. Only in some big, anonymous city would a crime like that not go so unanswered.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/21 08:18 AM
2

She’s lying. She understood the ticket. Every patient I have that is upset about something and is seeking confrontation or conflict during the encounter pretends they don’t understand something.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/12/21 12:08 AM
10

I watched the whole thing, and I think you’re being generous in your description of her behavior
/r/PussyPassDenied10/12/21 12:03 AM
279

Kind of feel bad for these girls. They looked like they have never been asked to think about something. That one girls face she seems genuinely surprised like she’s having her first real conversation.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/11/21 07:29 PM
2

Sure. But, who cares? I just got another job. I’m not particularly litigious, and I don’t even agree with discrimination laws, to be truthful. It’s just telling which is the one class you can brazenly discriminate against without any fear of recourse.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/10/21 11:11 PM
7

I’d qualify for a lot of special professional privilege if I changed my gender.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/10/21 01:25 AM
46

I was turned down for a six figure job, by email, after being offered it verbally and they, in writing, said they retroactively decided they wanted a female or POC for the role. Discriminating against white males is so acceptable, they will do it in writing.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/10/21 10:10 PM
5

I swear, if I ever see the words World Star suddenly appear, imma get the fuck out
/r/PussyPassDenied24/10/21 10:42 PM
10

LMAO
/r/PussyPassDenied24/10/21 05:29 PM
3

Aw, got removed
/r/PussyPassDenied23/10/21 08:07 PM
1

Every sexually promiscuous male in the US is doubtful of these 1% false accusation claims because it’s quite obviously not an accurate statistic. This would be like telling me statistically no one speeds on the highway, but I’m a daily driver that personally witnesses a disproportionate number of speeders regularly. For statistics, it’s very much garbage in; garbage out. Our access to accurate data on false accusations is unreliable and almost certainly the tip of a hidden iceberg.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/10/21 07:38 PM
1

This is an interesting point. Data as politicized and difficult to obtain or verify as false rape accusations, we are more likely to rely on anecdotal evidence. I’m fairly sure, purely anecdotally, that almost every sexually promiscuous man in the US has at least partially been falsely accused of sexual impropriety. But every single instance I’ve ever been aware of was reported no where. So where could such a statistic be found? This is similar to when someone shows statistics of low amounts of …
/r/PussyPassDenied22/10/21 07:35 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter